Arnold v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Arnold v. State

350 S.W.3d 65, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1311, 2011 WL 4762053

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Arnold v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1137 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 11, 2011·No. WD 72396·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Harvey Arnold challenges the .trial court’s denial of his motion to reopen Rule 29.15 post-conviction proceedings. He contends his post-conviction counsel abandoned him by filing an amended post-conviction motion advancing only claims that were either already argued on direct appeal or claims that were restated verbatim from his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Harvey Arnold challenges the .trial court’s denial of his motion to reopen Rule 29.15 post-conviction proceedings. He contends his post-conviction counsel abandoned him by filing an amended post-conviction motion advancing only claims that were either already argued on direct appeal or claims that were restated verbatim from his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Arnold v. State, 350 S.W.3d 65, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1311, 2011 WL 4762053 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

350 S.W.3d 65 (Arnold v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.